Skip to main content

tv   Reliable Sources  CNN  May 22, 2011 8:00am-9:00am PDT

8:00 am
reaffirmed reaffirmed -- we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years. that even while we may at times disagree as friends sometimes will, the bond between the united states and israel is unbreakable, and the commitment of the united states to the security of israel is ironclad. a strong and secure israel is in the national security interests of the united states not simply because we share strategic
8:01 am
interests, although we do both seek a region where families and children can live free from the threat of violence. it's not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations. america's commitment to israel's security flows from a deeper place, and that's the values we share. as two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers and foremothers fought must be the work of every generation. as two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedoms we cherish must be constantly nurtured. and as the nation that
8:02 am
recognized the state of israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the jewish people. we also know how difficult that search for security can be. especially for a small nation like israel, living in a very tough neighborhood, i've seen it firsthand. when i touched my hand against the western wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, i thought of all the centuries that the children of israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. when i went and saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an 8-year-old boy who lost his leg to a hamas rocket and
8:03 am
when i walked among the hall of names, i was reminded of the existential fear of israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatened to wipe israel off the face of the map, face of the earth. because we understand the challenges israel faces, i and my administration have made the security of israel a priority. it's why we've increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. that's why we're making our most advanced technologies available to our israeli allies. it's why despite tough fiscal times we've increased foreign
8:04 am
military financing to record levels. and that includes additional support beyond regular military aid for the iron dome anti-rocket system. a powerful example of american/israeli cooperation. a powerful example of american/israeli cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from gaza and helped save israeli lives. so make no mistake. we will maintain israel's qualitative military edge. you also see our commitment to our shared security and our determination to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. here in the united states, we've imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the iranian regime.
8:05 am
and at the united nations, under our leadership, we've secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. today iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system. and we're going to keep up the pressure. so let me be absolutely clear, we remain committed to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that iran poses. as i said on thursday, the iranian government has shown its
8:06 am
hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. moreover, iran continues to support terrorism across the region. including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. so we will continue to work to prevent these actions. and we will stand up to groups like hezbollah who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs. you also see our commitment to israel's security and our steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize the state of israel. as i said of the united nations last year, israel's existence must not be a subject for debate and efforts to chip away at israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the united states.
8:07 am
so in the durbin review conference against anti-israel sentiment, we withdrew. in the wake of the goldstone report, we stood up strongly for israel's right to defend itself. when an effort was made to insert the united nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians, we vetoed it. and so in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of israel's security.
8:08 am
and it is precisely because of our commitment to israel's long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between israelis and palestinians. now, i have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. and i indicated on thursday that the recent agreement between fatah and hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. no country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its disruption. and we will continue to demand that hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace including recognizing israel's right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements.
8:09 am
and we once again call on hamas to release a prisoner who has been kept from his family for five long years. and yet no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. the status quo is unsustainable. and that is why on thursday i stated publicly the principles
8:10 am
that the united states believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims. the broad outlines of which have been known for many years and have been the template for discussions between the united states, israel and the palestinians since at least the clinton administration. i know that stating these principles on the issues of territory and security generated some controversy over the past few days. i wasn't surprised. i know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a president preparing for re-election, is to avoid any controver controversy. i don't rahm to tell me that. i don't need axelrod to tell me that.
8:11 am
but i said to prime minister netanya netanyahu, i believe that the current situation in the middle east does not allow for procrastination. i also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. so i want to share with you some of what i said to the prime minister. here are the facts we all must confront. first, the number of palestinians living west of the jordan river is growing rapidly. and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both israel and the palestinian territories. this will make it harder and harder without a peace deal to maintain israel as both a jewish state and a democratic state.
8:12 am
second, technology will make it harder for israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace. third, a new generation of arabs is reshaping the region. a just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two arab leaders. going forward, millions of arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained. and just as the context has changed in the middle east, so, too, has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. there's a reason why the palestinians are pursuing their interests at the united nations. they recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process or the absence of one. not just in the arab world.
8:13 am
in latin america, in asia and in europe. and that impatience is growing, and it's already manifesting itself in capitals around the world. those are the facts. i firmly believe -- and i repeated on thursday -- that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. no vote at the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian state x a, and the united states will stand up against efforts to single israel out at the united nations or in any international forum. israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate. that is my commitment. that is my pledge to all of you. moreover, we know that peace demands a partner, which is why i said that israel cannot be
8:14 am
expected to negotiate with palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist. and we will hold the palestinians accountable for their actions. and for their rhetoric. but the march to isolate israel internationally and the impulse of the palestinians to abandon negotiations will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. and for us to have leverage with the palestinians, to have leverage with the arab states and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. and so in advance of a five-day trip to europe in which the middle east will be a topic of acute interest, i chose to speak about what peace will require. there was nothing particularly original in my proposal.
8:15 am
this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties including previous u.s. administrations. those questions have been raised. let me repeat what i actually said on thursday. not what i was reported to have said. i said that the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent palestinian borders with israel, jordan and egypt and permanent israeli borders with palestine. the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. the palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.
8:16 am
as for security, every state has the right to self-defense. and israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat. provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism to stop the infiltration of weapons and to provide effective border security. and a full and phased withdrawal of israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and nonmilitarized state and the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. now, that is what i said. it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps
8:17 am
that received the lion's share of the attention including just now. and since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps means. by definition, it means that the parties themselves, israelis and palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on june 4th, 1967. that's what mutually agreed upon swaps means. it is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. it allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. it allows the parties themselves
8:18 am
to take account of those changes including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. the ultimate goal is two states for two people. israel as a jewish state and the homeland for the jewish people and the state of palestine as the homeland for the palestinian people. each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition and peace. if there is a controversy, then, it's not based in substance. what i did on thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. i've done so because we can't afford to wait another decade. or another two decades or another three decades to achoiee
8:19 am
peace. the world is moving too fast. the world is moving too fast. the extraordinary challenges facing israel will only grow. delay will undermine israel's security. and the peace with the israeli people deserve. now, i know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. i respect that. and as fellow americans and friends of israel, i know we can have this discussion. ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.
8:20 am
and as a friend of israel, i'm committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized. i will call not just on israel but on the palestinians, on the arab states and the international community to join us in this effort because the burden of making hard choices might not be israel's alone. but even as we do all that's necessary to ensure israel's security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, i hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. for if history teaches us anything, if the story of israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible.
8:21 am
peace is possible. it teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. that lesson seems especially fitting today. so long as there are those across the middle east and beyond who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the united states will never aband understand our support for those rights that are universal. and so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. this is not idealism. it is not naivety. it is a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful palestine as the homeland of the palestinian people and a jewish state of israel as the homeland
8:22 am
of the jewish people. that is my goal. and i look forward to continuing to work with aipac to achieve that goal. thank you. god bless you. god bless israel. and god bless the united states of america. thank you. ♪ >> president obama just wrapping up his speech to aipac, the american/israel public affairs committee. this a speech not going back on anything he said on thursday but further explaining it and why he wants to set the 1967 pre-war borders with land swaps as a basis for israeli/palestinian peace talks. bringing in our matthew chance now, the president spent about half his speech essentially saying our commitment to israel's security is ironclad. and the other half of his speech explaining what he meant by his
8:23 am
1967 border statement and what it means, i got a huge sense of urgency from him about now is israel's time to act. is there that same urgency in israel? what will they hear from this speech? >> reporter: well, i think they'll hear those two things you just pointed out. first and foremost, these reassurances that the israeli government and israeli people, in general, will be looking for at this speech, reassurances that the bonds between the united states and israel are still strong. he described them as unbreakable, some reassurances that the united states would not jeopardize israeli security and that, of course, is the main concern of ordinary israelis. it's the main concern of israeli politicians as well. president obama going on, though, to restate that belief, that proposal that he made earlier in his speech about the region that the 1967 borders, the pre-'67 borders should be used as a basis of the two-state solution is absolutely right,
8:24 am
that this is something that's been proposed privately for many years. it's been discussed by all the parties for many years. and he simply restated it publicly and for the first time adopted it as washington's official position. and so that's something he attempted to explain here. but there are a number of nuances that i've noticed. first and foremost, he stayed away from this idea that withdrawing to those '67 borders should be the basis of negotiations. that's been something that's been very controversial here in israel. israelis who support that idea only want to see it as part of a final status agreement. there's a lot of concern that a withdraw to the '67 borders could be an interim agreement. that's something of concern. he's not said anything either that's going to appease prime minister netanyahu who's already said he's opposed to this concept delivered by president obama on thursday. back to you. >> thank you very much, matthew
8:25 am
chance, for joining us me. "state of the union" will have much more analysis of the president's aipac speech starting at noon eastern including an exclusive interview with israel's ambassador to the united states, michael oren. we'll also get reaction from the chief palestinian representative to the u.s. now, a reminder that "fareed zakaria gps" can be seen in its entirety at 1:00 p.m. eastern. again, with my thanks to matthew chance, up next, "reliable sources" with howard kurtz. there's a lot of talk, much of it justified, about how the media have gone tabloid. but sometimes, as we're reminded this week, there's a tabloid world to cover. arnold schwarzenegger admits to fathering a child with a household worker, a story he kept out of the press for more than a decade. we'll have the only national television interview with the "l.a. times" reporter who broke the news. and this question, should the media now give maria shriver and her family some privacy? in politics, nutd gingrich's campaign in a tailspin after a
8:26 am
"met the press" interview and donald trump mesmerizingly choosing "the apprentice" over presidential politics. and mitch daniels, the favorite candidate among elite columnists not running for president. i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." the first scoop in "the los angeles times" was big enough. arnold schwarzenegger and maria shriver splitting up just months after he stepped down as governor. but that was a mere prelude to the bombshell that he fathered what the tabloids call a love child. that story, of course, exploding across the media landscape. plenty of questions ahead. but first, mark barriback broke storys. i spoke to him earlier from san francisco. mark, welcome.
8:27 am
>> hi, howard. >> let's take a look at your reporting on this story. when you called the former housekeeper, she denied that this was arnold schwarzenegger's baby. she said it was her husband at the time who was the father of this child. at that point did you consider not publishing the story? >> no. at that point we knew the story was dead-on factual. we would not have gone and knocked on her door. we would not have put in calls to governor schwarzenegger or ms. shriver if we didn't know that it was true. we were not at that point setting out to confirm anything. and i want to take just a second to say, you give credit for my story, this was very much a team effort. there was a group of reporters at the paper who worked on it. i want to see that they get credit as well. so, again, we did not set out to contact the woman or anybody to confirm or to deny or to substantiate. we knew the story was true when we reached out to these people,
8:28 am
we were ready to go to press. all we were looking at that point was some reaction and some comment. >> and so the fact that the key person involved was saying to you no, this was not his baby, you felt you had enough evidence from your other sources that you were absolutely confident the story was true? >> absolutely unequivocally. we knew it to be -- as sure as i'm sitting here talking to you, we knew it to be true. >> and if the former governor had not issued a statement to "the los angeles times" acknowledging paternity, would you still have published the story? >> you know, i'm going to sound like a politician here, that's a hypothetical. we knew it to be true. we would have dealt with that if it had happened. we also reached out simultaneously to ms. shriver. you know, again, a hypothetical. it didn't come to that pass. you know, when we called the governor and his folks again, we said, we're not looking for any sort of confirmation. we're giving you a statement. i want to give them credit. they were professional, no argument, just put out the
8:29 am
statement because it was true. we all knew it was true. so it was pretty straightforward at that point. >> so you made clear that you were going ahead with the story with or without his confirmation. without getting into the confidential sources, did somebody or some persons come to "the los angeles times"? did somebody want this story out? >> you know, i can't speculate on why people do or say what they do or say. i mean, i think the fact that people were forthcoming in a way that they weren't when we started looking into some of these allegations as has been pointed out some years ago during the groping thing, i'm sure that's going to come up. people were forthcoming. i can't ascribe motives to them. we received information. we developed it to a point where we were comfortable. and there were two stories. "the l.a. times" broke the story -- >> do you think your ability to break the story was related to the fact that the housekeeper, show told you, had voluntarily left employment after 25 years.
8:30 am
others say she was fired. do you think her separation from the household was very much related to the fact that this has come out now? >> you know, that's hard to say. you know, in some ways the woman was -- i don't want to say peripheral to this, but, you know, by the time we knocked on her door, that was our first contact with her. so i don't know the time of when she left or why. again, people came forward and were forthcoming in a way they weren't previously. it's hard to ascribe motives to people. the information they gave us was solid. >> when you knocked on her door, was she nervous? kind of freaked out? >> you know, i can only give you a secondhand account because i was not the reporter who knocked on her door. but from the account of victoria kim whose name was on the story as well, she was the one who knocked on her door. by all accounts, the woman was gracious. she talked to her. was calm. you know, didn't fall over faint. didn't slam the door in her face. she was gracious. i think she answered questions for 15 or so minutes, had a conversation with our reporter.
8:31 am
>> the value of knocking on doors, the old-fashioned journalistic technique. >> shoe leather. we still do it at "the l.a. times." >> why did the newspaper in the initial stories not name the housekeeper? >> well, because -- let me say this. the pertinent information in this story, the fact that the former governor of california had a child out of wedlock and lied to his wife and lied to the voters for ten years which he admitted he did, that was everything you needed to know. whether he had had that child with the gardener or the cook or the chimney sweep doesn't 5dadd lot to the story. whether it was a boy or girl and they were 15 or 19 doesn't matter. the information that was important was all there. and the rest of it, frankly, seems like a lot of titilation. >> there's no shortage of that on this story. let's go back to your first story where you were able to disclose that arnold schwarzenegger and maria shriver had separated and were no longer
8:32 am
living together. did you pick this up from other stories? >> i had heard it. look, the governor and his wife move in a lot of circles. they move in business circles, hollywood and politics. as you'll note, there were all parts from the business staff to our hollywood reporters. i had heard it. it came up in the course of a conversation. it wasn't like, you know, i was meeting someone in a dark ally or in the middle of a pay phone if you can find a pay phone in this day and age. it came up during the course of a conversation. it was a tip. we pursued it. we developed the information. we had very good sources to a point where we knew not just the hotel but the hotel room where ms. shriver was. we didn't go knocking on her door, but we ascertained it to be true. again in that instance, i placed a call to ms. shriver and the governor telling them we had the information. we knew it was true. we were ready to run the story. again, they were forthcoming and put out the statement. >> we're a little short on time. again, you would have published the story about the separation even if the couple had not issued the confirming statement to your paper?
8:33 am
>> you know, it never came to that point. i mean, you know, they realized, again, they knew that we had information that was true. it was true so it never came to that point. >> last question. in 2003 a week before the recall election, "the l.a. times" famously reported those stories about the 15 or so women who said that arnold schwarzenegger had either groped them or behaved in a sexually inappropriate way. with the benefit of hindsight, do you think the paper should have stayed on that and possibly found out about the out-of-wedlock child? >> i want to say a couple things. the amazing thing about that story still to this day is true. the governor didn't deny it. he admitted it. people got angry at us. if you want to renew now, we'll have it on your door tuesday or so. so call on up. should we have followed up? we did follow up. and here's the basic thing about reporting. you know, the best reporter in america, whether it's bob woodward or brenda starr can't make people talk. we don't have a magic
8:34 am
possession. we don't have subpoena power. if people aren't going to talk, you run into a stone wall. every credible tip we pursued as far as we could and at a certain point when you can't prove something, you've got to stop and you go off and do other things like the bell scandal. >> the power of persuasion. mark barabak, thanks for joining us. joining us to talk more about this, here in washington, co-author of the reliable source gossip column at "the washington post." in los angeles, sharon waxman, found founder and editor in chief of thewrap.com. the house of arnold getting the household worker pregnant, what did it add other than the sheer titilation other than for the world to show her picture on television and on the internet? >> look, she had her picture up on facebook and pictures of her son up on her facebook page.
8:35 am
she didn't take those pictures down all day. i'm not sure if they're down now, but i know in the first couple of days when we knew what her name was that she hadn't taken either her pictures down or pictures of her son down. and most new sites including ours obscured the face of her little boy who looks exactly like arnold schwarzenegger. so if you're saying that the media should be more discreet than the person who's actually involved in this, i think that's probably asking too much of the media these days. >> well, i would say, amy, that this woman is not a public figure. she didn't sell her story to the tabloids. she didn't go on oprah. she had an affair with the boss. and the fact is you can now see pictures of the kid on the internet because of the way in which media outlets identified this woman who i'm not naming on the show. >> yes. this is a tricky thing. we didn't have too much discussion or debate about this. i think 10, 15 years ago with a different media climate, if you were the one media organization that was on top of this story,
8:36 am
as "the l.a. times" was, and this was knowledge that only you had, you'd be in a better situation of being able to have a discussion of do we maintain this woman's privacy. now when you have this information everywhere, your average reader is exposed to it everywhe everywhere. it becomes more abstract to have the discussion of this woman's privacy. >> but that raises a great issue. originally the picture and the name were reported by radar, also by tmz. and then, you know, i saw it on fox and the cbs website. >> it was on abc. no, it was on abc very quickly also. we had it within an hour. we didn't break that story, but we've been following the story very quickly. you know, we had our first story up within a half an hour of "the l.a. times" break the story. abc did. >> cnn changed its policy. so essentially every other organization is letting somebody else make the decision for them and then throwing up their hands and saying well, it's out.
8:37 am
we have no choice. but you do have a choice. >> you do have a choice, but in a competitive environment and in an internet world, there really isn't much point to not reporting it if "the new york times" is, for example. you know that. and to some degree we had this conversation during the monica lewinsky scandal, how much to say, how much to show. you know, there was a lot of detate then, and that was before the internet. in the age of the internet, you're two clicks -- you're one click away from finding it out anyway, actually. in some ways it becomes a moot point, i think. >> "the washington post," amy, did not put this story on the front page. it was reported in your column. >> yes. >> that is not your decision, but i would say it's a colossal misjudgment. this is one of the most famous people on the planet. everybody was talking about this story. why wasn't it treated as what it was, a news story? >> there were a number of people in the building who, like me, agreed that this is a story that should have more play. this is a big figure in american politics and american cultural life.
8:38 am
this is one of the more shocking revelations to come out about a politici politician. and it's an interesting story. i think stories that are interesting can be on the front page. i think there is some thinking that, well, he's no longer governor. this doesn't affect california fiscal policy. it's an interesting story. >> california fiscal policy, is that the standard? >> i would have put it on the front page. >> what was the counterargument? who cares? everybody cares. >> i think -- i don't know. i was not in on any of the discussions. i don't know that "the post" ever seriously considered putting it on the front page, but i think there's a squeamishness about being considered a serious paper when you do have a story that does have a tabloid feel about it. >> that's an interesting point, sharon waxman, respectable news organizations don't want to go tabloid. but we live in an age where all of us report on tiger woods and david letterman and all of these philandering politicians. i wonder if some of those in the, quote, establishment is just too squeamish about this stuff. >> i would have thought we were
8:39 am
way past that, quite honestly. i don't see how this is not a major story for "the wash waing post" and every major news outlet. the question might be when do they go overboard? you legitimately raised that question is when we're sort of gorging on that. this allows us to look back on the last 15 years of political and cultural history at a very fame us couple. and you frame that the way you look at them differently. you frame the way maria shriver reacted to allegations. you look at that differently. you look at "the l.a. times" breaking the story and many others writing about it and this deal arnold made with the media and "national enquirer" to squash other stories about this thing. >> let me jump in and ask you about maria shriver asking her family's privacy be respected. are the media capable of doing that in this crazy environment? >> absolutely. absolutely. and we should absolutely respect her privacy.
8:40 am
she has four children. they're going through an extremely painful, painful thing. i think there's not a married woman in this country or even a single woman and lots of men, too, who don't feel the pain that feel for maria shriver and what she's going through at this time and think about what that must be for her kids. so i think we absolutely can do that and we should. >> amy, have journalists failed to cover the story from one angle and that is this is potentially the story of a man abusing his power as opposed to another scandal? >> i think you're starting to see that kind of discussion. that's, i think, one of the most grotesque aspects of this story is the fact that this is a relationship with a subordinate. but, you know, if you want to get into that, the dominique strauss-kahn story, that's where you're really seeing -- that has sucked away that argument and that point of talk. but i think that's absolutely something -- obviously, that
8:41 am
seems to have been the turning point with this. >> a very different story, yk, about an alleged sexual assault on a maid by the former head of the imf. amy, sharon, thanks for joining us. when we come back, we'll talk about the coverage of newt gingrich, donald trump and mitch daniels, he's not running. we found that out this morning. stay with us. down the hill? man: all right. we were actually thinking, maybe... we're going to hike up here, so we'll catch up with you guys. [ indistinct talking and laughter ]
8:42 am
whew! i think it's worth it. working with a partner you can trust is always a good decision. massmutual. let our financial professionals help you reach your goals.
8:43 am
8:44 am
joining us now to talk about the coverage of presidential politics here in washington, david frum, editor and former
8:45 am
assistant to george w. bush. in san francisco, joan walsh, editor at large for salon.com. joan walsh, newt gingrich made all kinds of news on "meet the press" last sunday answering that question from david gregory about the paul ryan medicare plan turning into vouchers. he called it right-wing social engineering. what do you make of newt's charge that he was somehow set up by the host of "meet the press"? >> it's unbelievable. it's unthinkable. how is that a setup? it was a good question. it's the question that republicans and democrats as well are being asked, howie, what would be a setup about that? it would be a very predictable question if you were newt's staff prepping him for what's likely to be discussed. it didn't come out of thin air. it didn't come out of left or right field. it was good journalism. it wasn't gotcha journalism. that's preposterous. i just cannot believe that a man with his experience has consistently been blindsided by things that have come at him. and i don't think he was blindsided. let me take that back. i think he prepared that
8:46 am
statement. he tried it out. he thought it might have some resonance. it had resonance, not in a good way. so, you know, what a whiney guy. what a baby. that's ridiculous. >> just for the record, what gregory asked was, do you think republicans ought to bump the opposition and move toward to completely change medicare, turn it into a voucher program? the heat really came not from joan and her liberal friends but from conservative commentators who went nuts over gingrich seeming to go up against the official gop position. >> right. the thing that was the tragedy, gingrich gave a very wise answer. the answer that the party's eventual nominee will be giving. >> why was it unacceptable by many conservative columnists? >> that is to be expected. conservative columnists are invested in this kind of tactical radicalism. if he had prepared in a different way, he could have stood up to them. his problem he had taken such strident statements, about
8:47 am
president obama is a kenyan outsider, he had been the leader of the lower manhattan mosque faction, but to now say i'm going to be the moderate voice on economic issues, that made no sense with where he was before. had he been a different candidate, it could have been an excellent answer. it's the answer the nominee will give. >> rick tyler telling the huffington post, the literati, the journalists, sent them out to do their bedding and these sheep did it because they didn't want to be dropped from the cocktail party invite list. what do you make of that pushback? >> it's really funny. and if you got to see john lithgow on "the colbert report" the other night, you know how ridiculous it was. it didn't require anybody to go out -- it didn't require any minions. david makes a very good point, it really is going to be -- it has to be the mainstream republican position in november 2012. this is going to kill the party
8:48 am
otherwise. but we have all these republicans who know better, reversing themselves on climate change, on aspects of the health care reform that are actually good in mainstream aspects. so you have smart republicans doing extremely dumb things. and it doesn't really bode well for their chances. in 2012. >> what about this other question, david, about this bill that gingrich owed to tiffany's for somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000. when greta van susteren brought it up, he didn't want to answer it. gingrich said it was just a revolving fund. does the average american care about that, or is that kind of a media obsession? >> i don't know whether the average american cares about it. >> do you care about it? >> here's why i think it's an interesting and important question. this debt existed seven years after newt gingrich left public life, five years after he had married his current wife. and it raises questions to -- if you can afford $500,000 to tiffany's, well, good luck to you. but the fact that you're making purchases that you can't strictly afford seven years
8:49 am
after you've left politics does raise the question about what exactly is your financial situation? and that rings all kinds of alarm bells if you know the kinds of operations that gingrich has been running. >> i want to slip in a question about the news this morning. i'll start with you, david, about mitch daniels, the idaho governor who is reluctant to run, not going to get into the race. he really was the candidate of the elite columnists, thinking he should have run, urged him to run, rooted for him to run. >> he's a friend of mine. he's a friend of many of ours. and we have enormous respect for him. and i think there's a pretty general feeling among conservatives in washington that if you could pick a president, if it could be a ballot of one and you were the one, this is absolutely the guy you'd like there. >> but you've got to run and your wife thinks it's a good idea, that apparently was not the case. >> it's a very normal and human reaction. and you almost wonder about the people who make the opposite choice, how do they manage to do it? >> joan? >> yes. >> are you happy or not happy that daniels is staying out? >> i never thought he was a
8:50 am
formidable candidate, i'm sorry. i think his connection to the bush deficit budget was a tough thing to get over. i think the idea that he's such a sensible man. he called for a truce on social issues. and then he defunded planned parenthood, you know, another probably smart centrist guy to the right, i would never as a democrat afraid of him, and i think, you know, coming out and saying it's his wife and daughters is a rather strange -- >> well, it might have the idea of being true. donald trump, this past monday he said he's going to choose "celebrity apprentice" over the presidential campaign. were some journalists taken in by a masterful trump publicity campaign? >> you know, i think there's some evidence for that, but i'm not spirely sure, howie. i think perhaps if he had just been greeted, maybe he would have done something differently with the show. i think the bush back he got was very important. i give seth myers enormous
8:51 am
credit for his takedown of donald trump. he knew he was going to face incredible questions as well as ridicule. so i don't know that we'll ever know. >> i think trump was tempted at one point when he got the 26% of the polls. >> yeah. >> get david in in the final moment. >> i think there's a broader question to ask, which is when mitt romney easily puts away this whole contest, we're going to look back on four years of punditry and say what was that all about? wasn't it obvious the whole time that mitt romney was the front-runner, was going to win, and no one else had the staying power to beat him? >> if it was so easy to know the future, many of us would be out of business. it's more fun to talk about it. i think there came a point when he had to take trump serious. joan, you make a good point. when the press started looking loo his business record, his voting record, things he was pushing on birthers, that's when the air started to go out of the trump balloon. we have got to go. thanks very much for joining us
8:52 am
this morning. still to come, a curious omission. [ male announcer ] this is lara. her morning begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon tour begins with more pain and more pills. the evening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.
8:53 am
8:54 am
8:55 am
what makes us number one in motorcycle insurance? we love bikes. we love riders. and most of all, we love to ride. perfect hair every time. leading the pack in motorcycle insurance. now, that's progressive. call or click today. a quick hit from the "media monitor" this morning. it was supposed to be a look back at the major sex scandals involving politicians in recent years. there was one glaring omission in the cnn report. take a look. >> suzanne malveaux takes a look back at some of the scandals. >> whether it's the rumored affairs of john f. kennedy or
8:56 am
the painful story of john and elizabeth edwards, infidelity, lies, and the inevitable apologies. >> others in this hall of shame included mark sanford, newt gingrich, bill clinton, david vitter, larry craig. but there was no mention of a new york governor who resigned in disgrace three years ago after patronizing prostitutes. i'm sorry if you're going to do this kind of story you have to include eliot spitzer, even if he does now host a prime time cnn program. otherwise you are airbrushing history. cnn says the omission was decided by an individual producer and that other reporting did make mention of the spitzer scandal. that's it for this edition of "reliable sources." i'm howard kurtz. join us next sunday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern for another critical look at the media. "state of the union" with candy crowley begins right now. do you have an english menu? no english.
8:57 am
[ speaking chinese ] [ gasps, speaks chinese ] do you guys like dumplings? i love dumplings. working with a partner you can trust is always a good decision. massmutual -- let our financial professionals help you reach your goals. what?! sam, get your ears cleaned out. but what did he say? 42 wild italians. huh? it's a cruise for plus-size individuals. it's a commercial. that's all. i'm pretty sure he said the chevy cruze eco --
8:58 am
a commercial for eagle? eagles? no eco, eco, eco! it's "the chevy cruze eco gets up to 42 miles per gallon." who asked you? [ male announcer ] the amazingly fuel-efficient chevy cruze eco. turn up the volume!
8:59 am

216 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on